What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
260 Comments
- miffelplix, on 11/13/2009, -8/+423Excellent! Now right-wing Fox News/Wall Street Journal propaganda won't appear in my Google News gadget.
- RachelJTM, on 11/13/2009, -5/+259murdoch is so dumb, this is going to destroy him.
- pwarnock, on 11/13/2009, -3/+209Months? It takes < 5 minutes to kill feeds and change robots.txt.
- icyhaught, on 11/13/2009, -2/+197I don't think I will notice...
- billraydrums, on 11/14/2009, -1/+177Don't let the door hit you in the Ass, Murdoch.
- vtbarrera, on 11/13/2009, -2/+152Hey, I'm sure this is exiting for Murdoch's direct competitors. It's estimated that his properties will lose 25% of their overall traffic that comes from Google. That's a lot of traffic that'll be gained by other competing properties.
- inactive, on 11/13/2009, -1/+149good! I am sick of reading editorials from the morons at foxnews and WSJ.
- Lateralis1, on 11/14/2009, -1/+146Less Fox News results from Google? Win-win
- yocouchdigga, on 11/14/2009, -3/+137I love it when rich, powerful, scumbag ***** that I dislike shoot themselves in the foot.
Stay in the past, Murdoch. It's where you belong. - StripeyMagee, on 11/13/2009, -1/+111Good riddance !!
- Ne007, on 11/14/2009, -3/+112Rupert Murdoch is the essence of what I hate about the world today.
- lolerskate, on 11/14/2009, -1/+101That suppose to be bad news?
- seltaeb4, on 11/15/2009, -3/+99This will only help to increase the accuracy of Google News.
- nahsrocketeer75, on 11/13/2009, -0/+81Presuming he actually follows through and does it, what's the over-under on how long it will take him to come crawling back to Google? I say a month tops.
- inactive, on 11/15/2009, -2/+82hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
murdoch you're an idiot - seltaeb4, on 11/15/2009, -1/+70Murdoch also owns the publisher that printed Sarah Palin's book.
He wants you to buy all your information from him. Talk about a faulty product... - seltaeb4, on 11/15/2009, -1/+66May this go over just as well for him as his billion-dollar purchase of the collapsing myspace.com
- bdbthinker, on 11/14/2009, -1/+66i am so glad he's saving us the trouble and removing himself from the net
thanks rupert. - SpyderTaco, on 11/14/2009, -2/+54But where will you get your daily jokes from?
- scott1, on 11/15/2009, -2/+53You think Rupert Murdoch would know that?
- borez, on 11/15/2009, -3/+54***** him, ***** his operation and ***** their views. Quite frankly I'd be only too happy to have his ***** removed from my search engine results
- Ghostalker, on 11/15/2009, -3/+53And after this happens, all the crazy right-wingers are going to say GOOGLE did it because they're based in the hippie state of California and part of a massive liberal-biased media machine trying to destroy America and turn it into a commie/fascist/socialist state.
Murdoch will be painted as an innocent victim here (or worse, a silenced martyr) who was running a 'news' company that adhered to the first amendment rights. - the8thbit, on 11/14/2009, -0/+50What? I have to wait that long!?
God damn it Murdoch, just throw robots.txt on all of your pages so we can get this over with. - InetRoadkill, on 11/15/2009, -1/+49with some luck, he'll remove his content from the airwaves as well.
- macmcraeart, on 11/15/2009, -5/+51cool - i love watching moron douchebags commit financial suicide.
- Sil369, on 11/15/2009, -1/+46mccain will take care of the tech stuff
- jtscira, on 11/15/2009, -2/+42Google should pull the plug on them to beat them to the punch.
- islandbaygarden, on 11/15/2009, -0/+36So Murdoch's point is that Google is stealing his content without paying for it... anyone ever thought about where Murdoch's content cames from in the first place? Aren't most news articles regurgitated press releases anyway? So in effect, Murdoch is wanting money for something that was never his in the first place...
- aywwts4, on 11/15/2009, -2/+36Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
- The Internet.
(If they ever change their minds Google should just keep blacklisting them) - ChuckDees, on 11/15/2009, -0/+33Do they get that they are censoring the right winger view off the internet all on their own?
Also they pulled some Fox News content off of youtube also.
They didn't want liberal blogs like HuffPo using their video to make fun of them with, but they allowed the content to still be linked to right wing blogs. - TheSkunkMonkey, on 11/15/2009, -2/+31Thank you Mr. Murdoch! I for one do not want the tripe you call content appearing in my Google searches anyway.
But to be honest, has anyone explained or shown you the server logs that show just how much traffic you get from Google? Because I'm sure if you actually took the time to understand what the technicians are explaining to you, you would recognize the massive stupidity in this move.
In recognition of your massive stupidity Mr. Murdoch, I hereby grant you this special award:
http://www.stupidprize.com/Rupert+Murdoch - nambio, on 11/15/2009, -0/+27This is hilarious. Most people can't be bothered with a free sign-up when they encounter "log in to see the full article", so I have no idea how they think this is going to work.
And since I work in the industry I can refute Murdoch's claim that people who com via search are the least valuable of visitors -- publishers make their money on advertising, and (in terms of CPM advertising) the money they make is dependent on how many times the page is viewed -- so whether they are loyal readers or one-time Googlers, it doesn't really matter. - c010rb1indusa, on 11/15/2009, -2/+29I'd be surprised if anyone accessing foxnews.com can navigate the internet without google
- GTanaka, on 11/15/2009, -2/+29I'm sure it will be very exiting.
- 4321234, on 11/15/2009, -1/+26He's your whole world? He's a great prez, but that's a bit obsessive.
- 4321234, on 11/15/2009, -1/+26I guess I can forget about trying to configure a fascist propaganda filter for google news.
- bmson, on 11/15/2009, -5/+29But what research could have told you that LOLcat, Starwars kid, dancing baby, Techno Viking, Leeroy Jenkins, 2 Girls 1 Cup etc. would work?
Even Craigslist shouldn't work.
This is the intertube, things don't make sense here, never have and never will. - inactive, on 11/15/2009, -1/+24good riddance.
- loneraver, on 11/15/2009, -0/+23where I always get them, The Daily Show and Colbert Report. Duh!
- twiztidsinz, on 11/15/2009, -1/+22Don't be so simple...
It will help to increase the accuracy of the whole internet. - ThantiK, on 11/15/2009, -0/+19I'd say the overall consensus is that this is a good thing. No?
- MakanGuru, on 11/15/2009, -1/+19In short, if you want "fair and balanced" news, you going to have to pay for it.
- RandomGorilla, on 11/15/2009, -0/+18It's owned by Murdoch and its editorials are notoriously right wing. Mostly it's the editorials that are what the assertion is based on.
- Ryan0617, on 11/13/2009, -0/+16He might do a few sites at a time and see how that works out. Maybe keep a few big ones accessable so it doesn't 'look' like a complete failure when/if it fails.
- phoomp, on 11/15/2009, -0/+16No doubt they've done their research. But, as these content dinosaurs have shown over and over again, they're research is done from the perspective of preserving obsolete business models.
- iagainsti, on 11/15/2009, -4/+20Rupert needs to go ahead and die already.
- 4321234, on 11/15/2009, -2/+17objective criticism? Really? Your alternate reality offers no objectivity. Sorry.
- hmmdar, on 11/15/2009, -0/+14Does that mean the wsj digg spam wont be happening as much once that happens, please say yes!
- KevinMalone, on 11/15/2009, -1/+15Exiting where?
- charlietuna, on 11/15/2009, -1/+14I think he's bluffing.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 265 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is